U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–916 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–498 

WILDFIRES: ASSESSING FIRST RESPONDER 

TRAINING AND CAPABILITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

PAT MCQUILLAN, Staff Director 

BRANDON BOOKER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2014 

Jim Hubbard, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 4 

William R. Dougan, National President, National Federation of Federal Employees ................................................................................................................... 5 

Kevin B. O’Connor, Assistant to the General President for Public Policy, 

International Association of Fire Fighters ......................................................... 7 

Hon. Mike Navarre, Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska .......................... 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Dougan, William R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Hubbard, Jim: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Navarre, Hon. Mike: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

O’Connor, Kevin B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX 

Statements for the Record from: 

Chief William R. Metcalf, International Fire Chiefs Association ................. 34 

USDA OIG Audit .............................................................................................. 39 

The National Strategy ...................................................................................... 97 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Mr. O’Connor .................................................................................................... 190 

(1) 

WILDFIRES: ASSESSING FIRST RESPONDER 

TRAINING AND CAPABILITIES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. We will start here in just a couple minutes. We 

are working on the video, and we have someone that will be testifying from Alaska, so we are trying to save him 3 days of travel 

to give us 5 minutes of their wisdom. So be patient. Please continue while we wait. 

[Pause.] 

This is our effort to move the Senate into the 21st Century as 

we do this testimony. This is the first time, I think, this Committee 

has done this, and some of us that are far distance, we want to try 

new technology. If it does not work, they have Plan B and C—just 

like firefighters have. There is never one plan. 

[Pause.] 

Mayor Navarre, can you hear me? Perfect. We can hear you very 

loud and clear. 

Mr. NAVARRE. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. Are you guys ready on the technical team? By 

non-answer, that is approval. That is how it works. You do not answer, it is a yes. 

So what we will do—and I know—Mayor Navarre, do you have 

yours on mute in case there is any background sound until we are 

ready to go? Or do we mute that here? Do not do anything, Mike. 

Are we good? OK. 

Thank you all very much for being here. This is something we 

are trying because it is hard to get people here sometimes, especially from the West, where there are a lot of these issues, especially firefighting issues, and especially in Alaska. So it is a pleasure to have folks here. 
2 

This is the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia, and I apologize. 

I have a little cold here, so I am kind of suffering so I appreciate 

you all being here. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here, especially on short 

notice, to lend their expertise to our discussion. We are here today 

to take a closer look at the problems that are serious concerns to 

many States and that is wildfires. This is a challenge that confronts communities of all sizes, towns and villages, cities, States, 

and the Federal Government. 

As a former mayor myself, I know firsthand how important it is 

to have personnel and resources to prevent and fight fires when 

they occur. The stakes are high, and we must ensure that first responders who are out there protecting lives, homes, and businesses 

receive the training and support they need. That is why we are 

here—to learn from these experts and leaders about the situation 

on the ground, across the country, and from a variety of perspectives. We have to know where we are succeeding and where we 

need more resources or a new approach. 

There are many different levels of government involved in fighting fires. From local to various Federal agencies, it is important we 

have comprehensive protection and response no matter where a fire 

occurs. I know providing that protection has become more and 

more expensive, especially on the Federal level. In the past 12 years, Federal costs have averaged more than $3 billion a year. That does not include the $2 billion spent by State 

and local communities as well as other private spending. Those 

costs are increasing because wildfire activity is growing. When you 

talk about wildfires, most people think of flat, grassy States like 

Montana or States hit by drought like California. But as weather 

patterns have been changing with the rest of our climate, more 

States than ever are being hit by huge wildfires. 

In the past decade, the amount of acres burned up are up by almost 67 percent. Right now in Anchorage, more than 700 men and 

women are fighting the dangerous fire in the Kenai. It is called the 

‘‘Funny River fire.’’ But there is nothing to joke about with this 

blaze. Brave firefighters, including hotshot crews and 

smokejumpers, have been fighting to put out this fire since May 19. 

They have done an amazing job, and all Alaskans are deeply grateful for their efforts. As of yesterday, the fire was 59 percent contained, and danger to life and property has been nearly eliminated. 

It scorched almost 200,000 acres of our forest, close to residents, 

businesses, and individuals. 

It is early in the fire season for something of this magnitude in 

Alaska. My State has had one of the warmest winters on record, 

and now strong winds and low humidity are combining to allow 

these fires to grow quickly. 

Over the weekend there were reports of 15 new fires in the Fairbanks Service Area, from Chena Hot Springs to Tok. Luckily, these 

were relatively small fires, but they only stayed that way because 

of the outstanding work of our firefighters. 

To make sure we are as prepared as we can be, that we have the 

resources and experienced personnel out there in the field, we have 

to look at the first responder hiring and retention practices. The 
3 

skills men and women learn during training to become a firefighter 

or smokejumper or hotshot team members are invaluable. We must 

recognize their importance, not just with words but in how we treat 

them. 

Earlier today, I was proud to introduce the Senate version of the 

Federal Firefighter Flexibility and Fairness Act to address a glaring misstep in how we treat Federal firefighters. Across the country, municipal firefighters are able to work out changes in their 

schedule among themselves, with supervisor approval. They can 

trade shifts without impacting their pay schedules, allowing them 

to take care of sick family members or attend their children’s important events. This type of flexibility is important to morale and 

life balance, and I am glad that State and local firefighters have 

it. 

But for some reason, Federal firefighters do not. Right now these 

men and women can only swap shifts within a 2-week period. In 

an accounting system that the government uses, it ends up with 

one firefighter receiving no pay for the shift while the other receives overtime, and it does not make sense. 

Because the system is so nonsensical, some departments do not 

allow shift swapping at all. I cannot blame them for not wanting 

to deal with that headache. But this problem needs to be fixed. 

Treating our firefighters well is not only the moral thing to do, but 

it is also fiscally responsible. 

The bravery and skills earned by these folks out in the field 

make it even more important to retain them as long as possible. 

Attrition reduces the effectiveness of our firefighting teams, which 

is unacceptable. We need to train and maintain the best teams we 

can. Clearly, that goes for municipal firefighters as well. 

I have been a strong supporter of the important Federal resources like Fire and SAFER grants that go directly to our local 

fire situation. From Palmer to Nikiski, firefighters have told me 

how beneficial these grant program are. That is why I am fighting 

to roll back President Obama’s proposed cuts to these programs in 

this year’s appropriation bill. 

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am committed 

to restoring the $10 million proposed reduction because every dollar spent will save more than that in local communities. 

One last issue I want to bring up very briefly before I introduce 

our witnesses is a broader issue that impacts many firefighters in 

Alaska: the disadvantages to seasonal employees in the Federal 

hiring process. I have been working with Senator Tester and looking closely at the bill that he and Senator Mark Udall have introduced, the Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act (LMWFA), 

Senate bill 1120. Seasonal workers are so important to Alaska. A 

large number of Alaskans hold different jobs based on the season 

since we have such a unique climate. Many firefighters come from 

the lower 48 to help us fight fires in the summer. Right now it 

seems to me that the Federal hiring practices are not giving these 

seasonal workers who have developed great expertise over many 

years a fair shot if they want to transition to a full-time job in the 

same field. 

I am glad to hear your thoughts on this issue, and I am looking 

forward to the continuing discussion with Senator Tester. 
4 

Let me introduce our witnesses, and I will start with Mr. Jim 

Hubbard, the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

which is part of the Department of Agriculture. Jim. 

TESTIMONY OF JIM HUBBARD, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here. 

As you have noted, we are into the fire seasons, Alaska especially. Arizona and New Mexico are having normal fire activity, but 

it is busy. The Funny River fire is a bit unusual. You do not have 

200,000 acres burn on the Kenai very often, and that gets a lot of 

attention, especially with the values at risk and the people in the 

way. And what our season looks like is that June will continue to 

be a problem for Alaska. Maybe it will moderate by the time July 

gets here. I hope so. Alaska went a little longer than usual in past 

seasons. 

As we move further into the season and get into July, California 

and Oregon look particularly bad. Nevada is not going to be good. 

So that is where we expect most of our problems. It will be scattered throughout the West, as usual, and we will have surprises 

pop up all across the West. But those three States in particular 

look problematic. 

Our forecasts tell us we probably will be spending more money 

on suppression than we have in the budget, so we will go through 

that process again. 

We are prepared. The interagency forces are at 14,000 firefighters that are available to us. Currently we have 14 large air 

tankers, but we could have as many as 22 under exclusive-use contract before the season is over, as those next-generation planes 

begin to fly for us. 

We still have the eight military MAFFS units as surge capacity, 

and we do have the 72 single-engine air tankers under contract 

and more than 600 helicopters under contract. So the aviation 

forces and the ground forces are in place for the season. 

But the conditions are challenging. The long-term drought, the 

changing conditions that we face with climate and with fuels and 

with insect and disease have all caused problems, not to mention 

the development that has to be protected that is in the way of some 

of these difficult situations. 

Risk reduction occurs on about 3 million acres per year. That is 

a substantial amount, and it addresses some of the priorities. It 

does not cover the territory that needs to be—the risk that needs 

to be reduced. 

It is a combination of what you do on the landscape and what 

you do in the community and around the community that will save 

us in the future. 

Some of our limiting factors have to do with the transfers that 

occur when we do not have the suppression dollars to pay the bills 

and we have to take it out of other accounts in the Forest Service 

to do so. Then how we budget for suppression has been an ongoing 

debate. You mentioned do we have the resources and do we have 

the right approach. Perhaps that needs another look, and other 

looks such as was proposed by Senators Wyden and Crapo in the 

bill they introduced that suggests that perhaps the Forest Service 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Dougan appears in the Appendix on page 21. 

and the Federal agencies continue to provide in their budget the 

initial attack and the forces and the cost of that initial attack. And 

we do catch 98 percent of our fires during that initial attack period, 

but it is those 2 percent that get away that cost us about 30 percent of that suppression budget, and those are fires that perhaps 

fall into a disaster category and ought to be treated and financed 

differently. 

If that were to happen, then we would hope that the agency 

could make proposals for using some of that budget constraint to 

increase the land treatment and reduce the risk further. That 

would be our approach, and we would hope that something like 

that could at least be considered. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

I will ask questions at the end, but let me ask William Dougan, 

national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees 

(NFFE), next please. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. DOUGAN,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

Mr. DOUGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify. Our union represents 

110,000 Federal workers, including 20,000 in the Forest Service. 

For 22 of my 31 years in Federal service, I fought wildfires, serving in many positions. I spent 16 years on the Tongass National 

Forest in Sitka, Alaska. I can tell you that firefighting is a dangerous business. When you are on a fire, the only thing between 

you and trouble is your equipment and the brave men and women 

with you on the fire line. That is why it is so important that we 

arm firefighters with the training and resources they need to be 

safe and complete the mission. 

The wildfire problem in the United States is growing. Six of the 

worst fire seasons since 1960 have occurred since 2000. We must 

recognize that this is the new normal, and we must change the way 

we do business to account for it. 

With respect to training, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Inspector General (IG) issued a report in 2010 that predicted future shortages of qualified firefighters in the Forest Service. Too few were being trained to replace those retiring. That prediction is now coming to fruition, and it is a major problem. 

Wildland firefighting agencies have done tremendous work to improve interagency cooperation. The development of a consistent certification and training system administered by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) is an outstanding achievement. 

Our union is proud to be a partner in the Wildland Firefighter 

Apprenticeship Program (WFAP), which we hope will take consistency and training to the next level. Unfortunately, this program 

has been underutilized, in our view. 

Within the Forest Service, training and resources are not reaching the field in a timely way. From one forest we are hearing that 

primary fire personnel are unable to attend training classes that 

are only offered out of State, leaving them no option for certain 
6 

training. At another forest we hear that managers are getting their 

training budget too late to get employees into classes. 

Congress can improve access to training by exercising oversight 

to ensure that the action items developed as a result of the referenced IG report are properly implemented and make certain the 

apprenticeship program is used to its fullest potential. Also, Congress should make every effort to appropriate funds in a timely 

manner so resources get to the ground in time to be used. 

With respect to workforce retention, the attrition rate for 

wildland firefighters is alarmingly high. Something must be done 

about it. Here is something that can be done right now. For a 

wildland firefighter, experience is hard-earned on the fire line. 

However, the firefighter career path is blocked by flawed and dysfunctional Federal regulations. Many Federal firefighters begin 

their careers on temporary appointments. Many return year after 

year, acquiring valuable training and experience. However, firefighters looking to advance their careers face a critical barrier. Current regulations do not credit their service, regardless of how long, 

as qualifying for acquiring ‘‘competitive status.’’ Because of this 

barrier to career advancement, many skilled firefighters eventually 

leave, taking their valuable skills with them. 

To explain, agencies have the flexibility to fill positions from current employees under merit promotion or from among civilian applicants under the competitive process. Over 2 million other Federal employees have the status to compete under merit promotion. 

However, firefighters classified as ‘‘temporary seasonal workers’’ do 

not. They cannot compete for jobs filled under merit promotion procedures. We strongly urge passage of the bipartisan Land Management Workforce Flexibility Act, S. 1120, which would address this 

inequity. 

Funding for wildfire suppression is also a problem. With the occurrence and severity of wildfires increasing, the portion of the 

budget that goes to fire suppression and preparedness has increased dramatically. 

The expense of fighting wildfires often exceeds the funds appropriated for wildfire suppression. When this happens, agencies 

transfer funds from other programs into firefighting accounts to 

cover the shortfall. This so-called fire borrowing results in cancellations and delays in the agency’s on-the-ground program of work. 

Ironically, many of the canceled projects are those designed to reduce the frequency and severity of catastrophic wildfires. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it costs taxpayers more. We urge Congress to pass the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA), S. 1875, 

to address this. 

I will conclude my testimony by quoting one of our members currently out on fire assignment in Alaska: ‘‘In Alaska, we do have a 

well-constructed, tactical plan to deal with fires, but wildland fires 

are on the increase. We fight to put the fires out immediately. We 

address the hazardous fuels.’’ But sometimes forests are allowed to 

grow into a dangerous State of overgrowth and decay, causing a 

hazardous situation. 

It is time for Congress to take action to provide the resources 

and the flexibility necessary to prevent this hazardous situation 

from occurring in national forests across the country and to protect 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. O’Connor appears in the Appendix on page 29. 

communities across our Nation from wildfire. These reforms cannot 

wait until next year. They need to be acted on immediately. 

I thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and I would 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Just to note, all the written testimony also is included in the 

record to augment your verbal testimony. 

Next we have Kevin O’Connor, assistant to the general president 

for public policy of the International Association of Fire Fighters 

(IAFF). Kevin. 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN B. O’CONNOR,1 ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today representing the 300,000 professional firefighters and paramedics who 

provide fire, rescue, and EMS services across our great Nation. 

First, let me thank you for the introduction of the Flexibility 

Act—our Federal firefighters greatly appreciate it—and for your 

stalwart support on appropriations for the other programs. It is 

very much appreciated by our organization. 

Wildland fires are increasing in intensity, duration, and scope. 

They are a threat from coast to coast. From 2003 to 2012, over 17 

million acres have been scorched by wildfires, claiming over 300 

lives, destroying 34,000 homes, and resulting in over $70 billion in 

insurance claims. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the raging fires currently threatening your State are a stark reminder of this present danger. Before the hearing, we spoke with Tom Wescott, our State president 

in Alaska, and he estimates that the vast majority of his membership, municipal firefighters, will be engaged in those efforts before 

the fire is finally brought under control. 

The scourge of wildfires has become epidemic and will continue 

to imperil our Nation. The IAFF supports the Administration’s proposal changing the way in which the Federal Government budgets 

for wildland firefighting. It makes sense. It should be done. But it 

is only a first step. 

For decades, foresters and firefighters have battled on how to 

deal with wildfires. Today, with the increased development in the 

wildland-urban interface, we must develop a more global and holistic strategy to deal with this issue. Clearly, the Federal Government must take the lead. We applaud Congress for mandating the 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. This strategy establishes a national vision for wildland fire management and 

response. The strategy is an excellent first step, but once again 

more must be done. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, American cities were blighted by an epidemic of arson and fire deaths, analogous to what is occurring 

today with wildfires. To address this crisis, the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control issued the landmark report 

‘‘America Burning.’’ Over 40 years later, the document is frequently 

cited and still has value. The Federal Government should take a 
8 

similar approach to the wildland fire problem. We propose the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission, modeled after ‘‘America 

Burning,’’ with congressional participation, to fully study this issue 

and make recommendations. 

Although the IAFF has implored the Administration to establish 

such a commission, they have yet to act. The Federal Government 

is the only entity that can ensure the participation of all stakeholders. We hope that, either on their own volition or with a gentle 

nudge from Congress, they will soon act. 

State and local governments also contend with devastating 

wildland fires. On privately held or State-owned lands, firefighting 

operations are exclusively handled by State and local assets. It is 

safe to say that west of the Mississippi and throughout the Southeast, nearly every firefighter will ultimately be called upon to fight 

a wildfire. Disturbingly, not all firefighters are trained to battle 

these fires. Cash-strapped fire departments frequently cannot afford to provide training. We propose that the Federal Government 

establish a pilot program to provide wildland fire training for local 

firefighters in high-risk areas. 

Furthermore, because firefighting is an inherently governmental 

function, it should be a default policy of the Federal Government 

to contract with a governmental entity having jurisdiction in the 

impacted area if additional firefighting resources are needed beyond the Federal effort. 

However, if private contractors are required, they should be required to meet the same rigorous standards of their governmental 

counterparts, period. This is an issue of public safety, firefighter 

safety, and operational efficiency. 

Last, we need to protect the men and women on the fire line. Not 

quite a year ago, 19 brave wildland firefighters from the Granite 

Mountain Hot Shots team and proud members of the IAFF Local 

3066 died in the line of duty battling the Yarnell Hill fire. Those 

tragic deaths and, indeed, the death or injury of any wildland firefighter should give us pause. 

Wildland firefighting is physically taxing, emotionally draining, 

and incredibly dangerous. The job differs greatly from that of a 

structural firefighter. Wildland firefighters are on scene fighting 

fires for days or even weeks at a time. Through government investment and research over many years, much is known about the 

health impacts of fighting fires for structural firefighters and how 

best to protect them. But we are only beginning to examine these 

impacts on wildland firefighters. 

As a leader in firefighter health and safety, the IAFF is uniquely 

positioned to help coordinate research efforts. With our California 

Forestry Local 2881, San Diego State University, and much appreciated funding from the Department of Agriculture, research has 

already started. San Diego, partnering with CDS, studied improving protective clothing worn by wildland firefighters—a great start. 

To prevent death and injury, it is incumbent that we study appropriate staffing patterns and other operational metrics to ascertain 

the impact on firefighter health and safety. Partial funding from 

DOA has been provided for such efforts, and we encourage the Federal Government to continue this investment until the research is 

completed. 
9 

In closing, we must act now and very decisively on multiple 

fronts to address this complicated issue. I thank you for the opportunity to testify and will gladly answer any questions. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Let me go to Mayor Navarre, mayor of Kenai Peninsula Borough 

from my State of Alaska. I was down there about a week or so ago 

at the Funny River fire, which, as we all know, has been a top priority, I know, for firefighting. So we appreciate Mayor Navarre, 

and thank you also for being a pilot here of trying to use our technology. So we will allow you to testify, and then we will open it up 

for questions after your testimony. Mayor Navarre. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MIKE NAVARRE, MAYOR, KENAI 

PENINSULA BOROUGH, ALASKA 

Mr. NAVARRE. Thank you, Senator Begich. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing and for touring the area when you did and 

asking the right questions about the adequacy of the response and 

whether or not resources were available where needed and when 

needed. And the answer to that I think is absolutely. I was exceptionally impressed with the incident command structure and the 

way that there was coordination between all of the agencies as this 

fire was developing. We had incredibly high winds, changing wind 

directions and conditions. But the knowledge that the command 

team had of fuel sources, of fire behavior, logistics, all of the things 

that count when you are really reacting to an ever-changing fire 

dynamic was truly impressive. 

The coordination between the agencies, I cannot say enough 

about how all of the resources and the resource agencies worked together. One of the things that I should point out is that the refuge 

folks were quick to order up a command team, and also had done 

some fire breaks between urban and wildland interface that really 

were critical to the way that the planning and protection of the 

populated areas and the structures there. So we were very fortunate. 

So I want to say thanks to you and to the resources that were 

put toward this, and the result was that we had very few small 

structures, some remote cabins that were lost. Absent that, all of 

the residential areas were protected. The priorities were clear from 

the outset, that is, protection of the firefighters who were employed, also protection of land and property in the urban areas and 

the developed areas around the peninsula, and then looking at 

where the important infrastructure is, including some very high 

voltage lines that needed to be protected. 

And I want to also talk briefly about the importance of the planning process well in advance of what we know are going to be an 

increasing number of wildfires, and that is, Federal resources are 

important to the Kenai Peninsula in a variety of ways. We had 

funding over a long period of time to deal with the spruce bark beetle infestation that allowed us to build a coordinated plan that we 

could identify where the consensus was. And where the consensus 

was is making sure that we enhance natural fire breaks—power 

lines, roads—between urban and rural or wildland areas in the 

event that at some point we saw a wildland fire that would threaten the developed areas. 
10 

So over a period of time, I think we got as much as about $18 

million from the Federal Government, and we used that to build 

fire breaks, to do a Firewise program, to remove fuel sources. So 

I think that that is critically important. 

The other thing that was important and that we also used Federal grant funding for was the borough’s geographic information 

system. We have a very good system. We update it regularly. The 

last time we were able to update it with a Federal grant, doing 

some aerial flight to gather the data and put it into our system, 

was actually 2012, so we had pretty up-to-date information on 

where structures were, including in remote areas, and it allowed 

them to tap into our system and use it to know where they were 

going to muster their resources, where their fallbacks were. So it 

was an excellent planning tool for them. 

So I guess that is one of the things that in looking at whether 

or not resources were adequate in this case, as I said, I was very 

impressed with the level of effort that went into this fire, the resources that were employed on the fire, the planning that went into 

it on a nightly basis, and then the planning that was put into place 

and executed on a daily basis and sometimes an hourly basis. 

So I think we did have adequate resources, and one of the things 

that I am thrilled about was your efforts to get the drones at the 

University of Alaska-Fairbanks. That was something that was employed in this fire, at the end of it, to do some overflights. And I 

think that it is something that will be an even more increasingly 

valuable tool as we move forward. And as you know, Senator, the 

State of Alaska has incredible remote wildland areas and a lot of 

interface between rural and urban and small pockets of developed 

areas and populations. So it is critical in Alaska. 

So I want to again thank you and thank the incident command 

team, Rob Allen, also FEMA, and the pre-planning that we had 

through our Office of Emergency Management and the coordination 

that our emergency manager did in mustering local resources to 

help support that effort. I think all of that, was a good example of 

how in part we were lucky but the reality is that there was a lot 

of planning that went into it well in advance of when a fire might 

happen, and it really worked in this case. So I think it is a good 

example of the right amount of resources, the right amount of expertise that is brought in from a lot of different areas around the 

country and around the State. So it was impressive. 

Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mayor. And just for folks 

here in the room, these are pictures from that fire, and it is incredible devastation that occurred. And I was down there on Monday. 

As Mayor Navarre talked about, some incredible resources all came 

to the table at the right time. 

There was one thing you had mentioned, Mayor, and I want to 

just ask you, and I made a note here, but your borough mapping 

system, was that funded by the borough or was that a combination 

of Federal or State? Or how did you upgrade that? 

Mr. NAVARRE. It is operated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough, 

and it is available publicly, and it has a lot of tools that the folks 

who are familiar with GIS systems can tap into and use to get all 

kinds of different vegetation mapping. There are a lot of tools that 
11 

are available on it that can be used to identify, as I said, where 

strategies can be employed to attack a fire like this. 

And, the other thing that I should mention is—and you are 

aware of it, but oftentimes at the Federal level, the sheer perspective and size of this fire was huge. But in terms of the State of 

Alaska and even the Kenai Peninsula, it is only a small portion of 

our land mass. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Jim, you might be able to answer this first question I have. 

When I was down there, I took a tour of some of the areas, and 

what I saw were these areas where they thinned out some of the 

trees and found natural breaks. I think the mayor described some 

of those areas, and you could go from the very heavy clustered area 

and then these thinned out areas and then in some cases a road 

or utility corridor. And the comments I got were, it was a raging 

fire, and then when it hit that thinned-out area, it dropped lower 

to the ground, and firefighters could attack it, manage it much 

quicker and control it at that point. 

And they were describing to me that came from—I was expecting 

to hear a big number, to be honest with you, a big cost to that 

piece. And they said, no, that was about $175,000 out of the 

wildland fire fund that they were able to get a grant for to do that. 

Can you tell me the status? I know that has been under pressure 

for many years in its financial capacity, because that is more preventive than disaster. So tell me a little bit about that fund, and 

is the Administration talking about looking long term at that and 

additional resources? And does that connect at all—and I am going 

to put this issue way over here for a second. I know the President 

has put together a proposal, I think it was $1 billion, on climate 

change issues and so forth, disaster management, some other 

things. Is that at all connected? Just a two-part question there. The 

impact was unbelievable, because then they showed me the area 

where they were unable to do it, and it just swept right across the 

road. It was an unbelievable difference. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Chairman, as you just described, the effect of 

that land treatment on fire behavior is exactly right, and that is 

what we are after. And where we place those treatments is pretty 

important, too, because if we do that in combination with the community that has invested in being adapted to fire, a little more fire 

wise, then we have a chance of protecting that community and saving it, even when fire like this comes their way. 

And most of that money is appropriated through the Forest Service, and we work through the State forestry agencies, on the private lands at least. And what happens there is the competitive 

process in the West with those different States proposing their 

highest priorities for protection and the money being allocated. 

Senator BEGICH. So is that fund, that money comes out for local 

communities like this that get grants. Give me the sense of that. 

Because what I understand, it is under pressure and not as robust 

funding as it used to be. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. HUBBARD. We try to protect that one. 

Senator BEGICH. Does it need more? I am giving you a softball 

there. I know you probably cannot answer because the Office of 
12 

Management and Budget (OMB) probably has not told you—but 

feel free. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Well, what I think I can say—— 

Senator BEGICH. Because I might jump to these two, and they 

will answer it. 

Mr. HUBBARD. You asked if it was connected to the President’s 

climate change proposal, and we are working with the Administration through the Department on what we might be able to propose 

in that regard as part of that billion. 

Senator BEGICH. So maybe how to attack some of that money 

and maybe move it—— 

Mr. HUBBARD. Perhaps, but it is definitely connected to the proposal for how we finance suppression. If that were to pass or go 

into effect and free up for the Forest Service roughly $300 million 

of discretionary funding, then the appropriators, of course, control 

that. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. HUBBARD. But that would be our proposal, to use it this way. 

Senator BEGICH. Well, let me make sure I clarify what that is, 

because I know some people who might be watching or later find 

out what we are talking about, in the past, the way your disasters 

were funded, where fires occur, you rob all these accounts, because 

we never funded it enough. Then we come back and try to fix it 

all, and we never really do totally. 

Now the idea is—and I might be wrong about these numbers, but 

I know I am close. We look back 5 years, figure out about 80 percent of what that cost is, and try to fund it, so you are at least having a budget to work from so you are not robbing all these other 

agencies. Is that fair? 

Mr. HUBBARD. That is fair. 

Senator BEGICH. And I can tell you, when I said that—and I 

know Mayor Navarre was there when we were doing an incident 

press conference, and I said that. One of your employees, I think, 

in the middle of the press conference—I loved it. He was in the 

back. He jumped up, excited about the whole thing, because it 

sounds like that is a big piece of this puzzle that you need to get 

out of the way in order to fund—and this is the piece that Wyden 

and Crapo are working on. But as an appropriator, I think we are 

going to try to do this year. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. In the appropriations process. So that is a real 

positive for all of us. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. HUBBARD. That is a fair statement, and thank you very 

much. 

Senator BEGICH. We like that. 

Let me ask you, there was an estimate or—we know since the 

1990s the amount of money for suppression has gone from about 

$1 billion to $3 billion, but there is a new report or some report 

out there that talks about we are still going to be about half a billion short in the efforts. Do you agree with that based on your 

analysis and what you are seeing this summer? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, I do. Those forecasts come from Forest Service research, and they provide them to us periodically during the 

year. It is based on what is going on with the forest conditions. It 
13 

is based on the drought. It is based on how the weather patterns 

are setting up with Pacific oscillation and ocean temperatures. It 

gives us an indication of what is coming our way for the season and 

where it might hit and what that might cost. And right now it is 

predicting that we will fall short. 

Senator BEGICH. The comment that Mayor Navarre talked about, 

which was the spruce bark beetle, at least in my State, but I know 

Colorado has issues, the Northwest has issues. I mean, it just is 

a constant growing problem. For several years, I know Alaska was 

earmarked. We had earmarks that we were able to do this. For 

some reason some people in this body do not like earmarks. I do, 

because people I think did not understand what it was. It was not 

adding to the budget. It was taking from the existing budget, and 

it gave some discretion of how to attack these issues. 

Do you think we have enough resources to go after it? I used 

spruce bark beetle in my State, but I know they are different in 

other States. Basically a beetle kill or forests that have dead kill 

in them, are we doing enough there? Or do you think that is an 

area that maybe we better be watching carefully here? Because 

that could be growing because of these drier temperatures and 

droughts that we are facing. Does that question make sense? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, it does. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. HUBBARD. The drier temperatures, the drought, the condition 

of the forest, the age of the forest, in the West it is largely a disturbance forest, and it was created by disturbance, and it is being 

regenerated by disturbance—fire, insect, and disease. That is going 

to continue on a large scale. And there are things we can do to 

mitigate that. We cannot stop it, but, yes, there is more that can 

be done to help with the impacts of it. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me, if I can, to Mayor Navarre, and then 

I am going to go to you two in just a second here. Mayor Navarre, 

at this point you do not have any more Federal resources for that 

type of activity in the spruce bark beetle cleanup or management 

at this point? Or do you still have Federal resources you are still 

tapping into? Or is that pretty much gone? And what are you doing 

now to combat that issue? 

Mr. NAVARRE. What did we do? 

Senator BEGICH. In other words, the grant money you used to 

get, do you still have any of that remaining that can still be used 

to do some of that spruce bark beetle management? Or what are 

you doing now that those resources are pretty limited to manage 

that dead kill? 

Mr. NAVARRE. Well, it actually happened last time I was mayor, 

from 1996 to 1999, where we identified the problem, and before 

that, Mayor Gilman had come to the Alaska Legislature for some 

funding in order to do some fire breaks in the Cooper Landing 

area. 

When I succeeded Mayor Gilman in 1996 and flew over the entire Kenai Peninsula, I was actually shocked at the level of infestation and the potential for a huge fire, and, really, because of the 

different land ownerships and agency oversight and things like 

that, what we did initially was put a task force together that 

worked very well, reaching common ground on things that every-
14 

body could agree on: natural fire breaks and enhancing them, 

whether they are power lines where you have a 100-foot right-ofway and trees on each side that are 200 feet tall, trying to broaden 

those a little bit, making sure that you clear rights-of-ways for 

roads a little bit further. And then perhaps as importantly as the 

Firewise program, defensible space, things like that, because people 

want to stay in their homes and protect their homes. It is their 

largest investment oftentimes in their entire life. 

And so making plans ahead of time that put resources into those 

types of necessary areas so that when you have an event like this 

you have the ability to actually combat it on a reasonable basis and 

at the same time putting adequate resources to it and protecting 

the folks who are actually out there fighting it, as well as the 

urban areas. 

So we still have areas that we could use additional funding for, 

but, we are going to go forward with that in any event, the educational process of homeowners, where they can build protections 

as best they can, and then making sure that our emergency operations plans are in place. The reverse 911 system in this case 

worked exceptionally well for pre-notifying folks, and then when 

there was an evacuation in two areas, we could get them out in an 

orderly manner. Again, those are things that are critically important in the interim between what, as I said, we know are going to 

be growing numbers of fires. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Jim, I said I would have no more questions, but I have one more, 

and I just remembered when Mayor Navarre was talking to me. I 

saw this map of this utility company, I think it might be Homer 

Electric, but I am not sure. They had a power line going through 

two Federal properties, one a reserve and one not. And yet they 

were able to clear their power line area, so they had a clear area, 

all the way, and then this new designation of Federal land goes 

after that, and they cannot clear it. Yet, to anyone else you would 

not know the difference between the land except you suddenly see 

there is no clearing going on. And their point was part of their job, 

because they have to access those utility lines, is to have that area 

cleared. But also from a fire protection area, it is a fantastic opportunity there. 

Have you run into this problem elsewhere, where you might have 

a different designation by a Federal agency of one land and then 

another designation side by side? And maybe it is only the West 

that has this problem. And yet, I mean, I could not believe the 

map. I mean, they show where they clear-cut, this strip for the 

power line, great, fire break, everything, utility corridor, then it 

just stops. But the utility corridor still keeps going with the utility 

line, and they are not allowed to clear this other area. But yet the 

fire could occur anywhere. 

Do you run into this? Not to get you in trouble with any other 

agency, but is there something we could do here legislatively to 

help this problem? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, we run into the problem, and it is not just 

differences of Federal ownership. It is differences with State and 

private ownership. So when we get into this, it really takes everybody coming together. And different agencies have different man-
15 

dates and different environmental clearance processes that they 

have to go through. But when you have a common problem such 

as this and you have values at risk that need to be protected, then 

you need to find a way of working it out together. 

Senator BEGICH. I may bring you an issue then, because I just 

think in some of these States that have this huge swath of jurisdictional issues, especially Federal land, it seems like we should figure out this, because the comment—I mean, on the one hand, we 

are watching one area burn up; on the other hand, we are controlling it on another land because we did this the right way; on the 

other hand, the other side is just burning up because we did not 

do the right control. So we will followup. 

Let me, if I can, to William and Kevin, thank you very much for 

being here. There was a recently released National Wildfire Strategy. Are either one of you familiar with that? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Can I assume that you were engaged—your 

organization or members of your organization might have been involved in that strategy or at least responded to the strategy? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Our organization was not directly engaged in that. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. DOUGAN. We certainly have had input, over the years, talking about fire management issues and about the more strategic picture with how we manage our landscapes across the country. 

Senator BEGICH. And why I bring this up is Kevin had a comment about a blue ribbon committee, and it seemed—one thing I 

am always nervous about, to be frank with you, is another committee around this place, because we will committee stuff to death. 

You had mentioned, as a matter of fact, the IG report, which is a 

question I am going to ask my staff to say, OK, that IG report 

came out, what have we done, what have we not done? Because as 

we have found with the VA, when you have IG reports, you actually should respond to them. And this might be the same thing. 

But do you think this strategy could morph into where we engage stakeholders—and this, again, for both of you—to engage 

stakeholders to say, look, we have this strategy, is it the right 

strategy? What do we need to do? What is the action plan that goes 

with the strategy to move us forward in a preventive way as well 

as a response in a sense? Can you respond to that? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Sure. I think the national strategy has great utility 

in terms of being a very strategic sort of broad-based document to 

get us to thinking about how we engage each other across jurisdictional boundaries, across geopolitical boundaries, across other regional boundaries, because that is part of the problem that we have 

in this country where—— 

Senator BEGICH. Some of those land issues that—they are jurisdictional. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes, absolutely they are, and it becomes very difficult and challenging to try to deal with fire across those boundaries, because you have to understand fire does not respect geopolitical boundaries or other jurisdictional boundaries. 

Senator BEGICH. We saw that on Kenai. They really do not. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes. And so the challenge for us as a country is to 

figure out how can we engage the stakeholders and get people to 
16 

understand that this is not just a Federal issue, this is not just a 

State issue, this is not just a local issue. This is a national issue 

that everybody, has skin in the game on. 

Senator BEGICH. A good example of that, I think $3 billion plus 

taxpayer money. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. And I think the data point that, Jim, you gave, 

which I thought was interesting, 98 percent of those, you get right 

at them, but it is that 2 percent that then add to 30 percent of the 

costs. And those are ones where we may not be as aggressive as 

we could be. And so I thought that was an interesting quote. 

I am going to jump back and forth a little bit, but you heard the 

commentary here, because I like the idea that we attack this issue 

in the sense of what do we need to do, because there are clearly 

changes in the environment. For Alaska to have a fire of that magnitude in May is unheard of. And we were very fortunate where it 

was and how quickly they could control it on the back end, because 

it could have to a whole bunch of businesses, homes, property, 

lives. And it seems like these little things of prevention could actually—in some cases, we lucked out on one. It jumped over a river. 

But then it hit a swamp. Thank God the swamp was there, because 

then it moved a different direction. The winds helped us. But then 

those winds are moving left and right literally in a 24-hour cycle 

and aggressively moving that fire. 

Give me your thought on this strategy, and can it be morphed 

into this idea you have that, given these stakeholders and just 

going after this? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, let me first say as an old firefighter, I am 

not much on commissions or meetings, either. [Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. I know a lot of firefighters, and you fit that 

mold. I could tell you right now, hear that voice. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. But with respect to this issue, first, I do want to 

laud what the National Action Plan has done. I agree with Bill. I 

think it has an awful lot of utility. And the Wildland Fire Leadership Council I think is doing a very good job. The International Association is not part of that, but this is not a parochial issue for 

us. This is such a complicated issue. You can get firefighters in a 

room, and you can come to consensus. On the ground, the coordination between Federal, State, and local assets is tremendous. But it 

is more than just a fire problem. And in my oral testimony, I used 

the term ‘‘holistic.’’ And by that I mean if you actually read the Action Plan, which I have in my hand and I think is a great document, all it talks about throughout the document is bringing people 

outside the Fire Service, other stakeholders, to the table. And, 

quite frankly, efforts were undertaken several years ago by the congressional Fire Service Institute, the International Code Council on 

trying to bring people together, and they were not successful. Why? 

Because, frankly, nobody had the hammer to get all the stakeholders sitting at a table, the home builders, the code enforcement 

folks, all of these people who were not part of this effort, but, 

frankly, who need to be involved in a larger dialogue as it relates 

to this problem, because as everyone testified, it is going to be a 

problem for many years. 
17 

And my analogy to ‘‘America Burning’’ was simply made to draw 

that point, I mean, if you look at the history there, and it worked 

very effectively. 

Senator BEGICH. Basically what happened there was Congress 

got involved and said, look—— 

Mr. O’CONNOR. That is right. 

Senator BEGICH [continuing]. We see this as a national issue, we 

are not interested in, one group taking the lead or another group. 

We just want to have a strategy that has an action plan that we 

can look at and determine if we can fund it, help it, make it happen from the State, local, private, Federal level. That is what happened there. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. That is absolutely correct. And even though I do 

have an aversion to those type of commissions, I really do not see 

any other entity, aside from the Federal Government, that can 

really force people to the table to have that conversation. 

Senator BEGICH. William, do you agree with that? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes, I think the convener has to be the Federal 

Government. And I think we need to start thinking outside the box 

of, what do we need to do, what are the interests that we need to 

satisfy to get these people to the table? For some it may be we 

might need to consider some incentive program such as, if you participate in this program and do certain pre-treatments to your land, 

you could get a tax break, for example. 

Senator BEGICH. Got you. That is an interesting idea. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Because, again, as you described on the Kenai with 

the utility corridor, if we have people that are participating or 

landowners that are participating and other landowners that are 

not, that is really not going to solve the big problem. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. What was more amazing about that is 

there were two Federal agencies, one wanting to, one not. That is 

something we definitely have control over in this body. 

Let me ask, you had said something that I thought also—two 

things. One, I think in your written testimony it says,‘‘. . . we are 

still doing business the old way and it is not working.’’ And then 

you also talked in your oral presentation about apprenticeship programs, which I am always intrigued about apprenticeship programs. We used them quite a bit when I was mayor of Anchorage. 

And obviously as a Senator I use internship programs all the time. 

I was intrigued by that. 

When you say it is business as usual, not changing much, can 

you give me a sense of what are those innovations that we need 

to be doing? Which I do agree with you on the issue of the temporary. We had the same problem when I was mayor of Anchorage. 

We had great parks and rec people came back every single summer. They had probably 20 years doing it. But because of the way 

the system worked, someone could come in that has been working 

for the city full-time, first-year employee, and walk in and have a 

better chance of getting that job than the temporary. We changed 

that because we thought that was not right, because if you have 

20 years working this seasonally, the odds are you are pretty good 

at it, because we would not hire you back seasonally for 20 years. 

So besides that, which, obviously I have introduced legislation to 

fix that, we think there are a lot of interesting ideas here. Tell me 
18 

what you are thinking here when you say ‘‘the old way.’’ And 

maybe I will turn to you, too, Kevin. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Well, I mean, another good example is the funding 

issue. How do we pay for fire suppression? I mean, historically Federal agencies have basically been given a budget of, X million dollars for fire suppression, and when the money runs out—— 

Senator BEGICH. We rob everywhere. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes, the agency is forced to look elsewhere in its 

budget to come up—because, again, we cannot—fire is unique, relatively speaking—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. DOUGAN [continuing]. In terms of an agency’s program. We 

cannot just walk away and fold our tents up and leave. 

Senator BEGICH. Again, so you support the concept of the WydenCrapo bill. 

Mr. DOUGAN. Absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. And what we are doing in the Appropriations 

Committee, which I feel very confident about we are moving on the 

right path here when we get the Interior budget bill, which will 

be—I am hoping that—we are doing two bills a week now. We just 

did two more today, we will do two more next week in the full 

Committee. I was somewhat shocked when I got here and found 

out we were funding at about a 20-percent level or so, and I am, 

like, well, we know the average, we know what is going to happen. 

We would hope not, right? Everyone hopes we do not spend anything in disaster firefighting. But that is not real. But maybe this 

approach is a better one. So that is a new approach that you think 

would be huge? 

Mr. DOUGAN. Yes, I think that is going to ensure that the agency 

has the funds in the programs that help it to accomplish its mission, whether those programs are pre-treatment—instead of robbing money from pre-treating forest fuels, they will have a full 

budget in that area, and we can continue to do some of these 

projects to mitigate future fire occurrences and hopefully allow us 

to catch these fires when they are small before they escape and become these huge catastrophes. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. Kevin. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, I absolutely concur. I mean, we have to 

have a different mentality. Years ago, wildland fires were largely 

contained in areas that were simply that. They were wildland. 

They were massive fires, but part of healthy forest is fire is a natural phenomenon and they burn. And some of the mentality was 

you allow it to burn. And I am certainly not qualified from an environmental standpoint to comment on that, but from a firefighting 

standpoint, with the development of wildland-urban interface, we 

really have to change our view on how to do that. 

Now, when you talk to the folks in terms of my membership, 

which is municipal—we do not represent the majority of Federal 

wildland folks, but almost all of our people west of the Mississippi 

are engaged in wildland firefighting. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The coordination on the ground is great. There 

are standard mutual aid agreements where it is automatic. If, for 

example, in California, we have a California Department of For-
19 

estry Station adjacent to Federal lands; they immediately respond 

and in many cases are able to mitigate the event before Federal resources are actually there. Conversely, the same thing happens 

when there is a Federal station near a State land or a privately 

held land. Their radio systems are very compatible. There is a unified command structure, and it all works very well. 

However, what we are hearing from our folks is that there is an 

issue—and it gets back to money—on timely repayments for local 

assets when they are assisting the Federal Government. And this 

is something that particularly in California some municipalities 

and counties are actually eschewing a little bit mutual aid agreements because they are concerned about the repayment. And it 

gets back to basically money. 

The same thing applies with training. I agree with Bill 100 percent. Training is vitally important. But when you have a municipal 

fire department that has to train its people on structural response, 

EMS, hazardous material, clearly there is only so much money in 

a pot. And one of the things that we want to ensure, the Red Card, 

the qualified certification versus the trained certification, we want 

to make sure that every one of our firefighters who is going to be 

exposed to a wildland fire is going to be, No. 1, safe and, No. 2, 

effective on the fire line. And there is no substitute for training, 

and, unfortunately, that costs money. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask one last question, and, again, I want 

to thank the whole panel here. This is helpful. I know in the Funny 

River fire, I think—and, Mayor Navarre, correct me if I am wrong. 

I may not get this right. Or, Jim, you might know this. I think we 

had to bring in two Canadian water tankers, if I remember right, 

in addition to our crew. Am I right on that, Mayor Navarre? I think 

that is what happened down there? 

Mr. NAVARRE. That is what happened. They brought in a couple 

of Black Hawk helicopters, also, and they had planes that were 

also deploying retardant in areas that it would be effective on the 

particular fuel sources. 

Senator BEGICH. Here is my general question on that. I think, 

Jim, you laid out a really good inventory, kind of our mutual agreements. I am assuming that was one of them, our international 

agreement with Canada, especially Alaska and probably the States 

that border from the lower 48. On the equipment that we have, 

that we operate or that we have relationships with, do we believe 

that we have good resources for their continued maintenance and 

upgrade? Or is that an area that we have to really look at here 

long term to make sure that we are not—because let us assume, 

for example, this season is a busy season again. It is the argument 

you might make for a guy doing aviation that the more hours you 

put on that plane, the more wear and tear it takes, and, therefore, 

the capacity for it to operate longer term diminishes. Do you see 

that as an issue that we need to really re-examine because these 

fires are more severe and happening in longer spreads of time, 

meaning the season is longer, I should say? Is that something we 

have to look at, or is that something you are looking at? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Both. We are looking at it; we have made some 

strides. We have moved from a primary fleet of 1950 vintage aircraft that are getting tired to a next-generation fleet. But we are 
20 

just getting into that, so there is a ways to go on making sure we 

have updated our aviation assets, especially the large air tanker 

portion of that. And I would say the progress is good, but we are 

not there. 

Senator BEGICH. And we did something last year, if I remember 

this right, through the national defense authorization bill, I think 

we got 21.7 went in your direction and 14 went to the Coast Guard, 

if I remember this correctly. 

Mr. HUBBARD. That is correct. 

Senator BEGICH. I hate to use the word, but ‘‘surplus’’ planes 

from the military that we—who knows what they were going to do 

with them. But they saw an opportunity, right? And we were able 

to mobilize them for the Forest Service as well as for the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, that is correct. That was a welcome addition 

to the fleet. And we do not have those yet, but we will, and we will 

start phasing them in next year. So that was seven C–130H’s, and 

we also got 15 Sherpa aircraft for smokejumper platforms. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. I know we worked on that from our 

office with Senator McCain, because we thought this was a great 

win-win not only for the Forest Service but the Coast Guard for 

equipment that is desperately needed. So we were happy to do 

that. 

Let me end there. I think the record will stay open for 14 days 

for other Committee comments and/or questions. I want to thank 

the full panel here, especially Mayor Navarre all the way from 

Alaska via teleconference here or Skype or whatever we ended up 

here with. But you are here, which is good. We appreciate that, especially because you are dealing with a real live issue on the 

ground. And we thank the panel here, and thank you for your written testimony, because I know there are a lot of suggestions that 

some of you have placed in there that we will absolutely examine. 

This is the Committee that deals with emergency disaster, first responders, FEMA, and others. This is an important issue, and I 

have a feeling, as you described very well, Mr. Hubbard, that the 

summer is just beginning, and we are already seeing a lot of issues. 

So thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned, and the 

record will be open for 14 days. 

Mr. NAVARRE. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(21) 

A P P E N D I X 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 

Æ